+ making web2.0 researchable web2.0 and scholarly communication innovation and use james stewart
Post on 28-Mar-2015
221 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
+
Making Web2.0 ResearchableWeb2.0 and Scholarly Communicationinnovation and use
James Stewart
+
+Scholarly Communication
Conducting research, developing ideas and informal communications.
Preparing, shaping and communicating what will become formal research results.
The dissemination of formal products.Managing personal careers, and research
teams and research programmesTeaching and communicating scholarly
ideas to broader communities.(based on Thorin (2003) )
+What is Web2.0?
+Characterised by example
Technical and content forms E.g. blog, wiki, social networking tool, social bookmarking,
peer to peer filesharing, etc
Particular Branded Service or Resource Facebook Skype OpenWetWare Sharepoint Wikipedia
+Web2.0
Way of describing certain post-dot.com bust businesses
Technological definition: “Web 2.0 encompasses a variety of different meanings that include an increased emphasis on user-generated content, data and content sharing and collaborative effort, together with the use of various kinds of social software, new ways of interacting with web-based applications, and the use of the web as a platform for generating, re-purposing and consuming content.’ (Anderson 2007)
The way technology is being driven by individuals and communities seeking to manage the explosion of information, and the move to ‘networked society’
+“Qualities of Web2.0”
“Openness”
“Usability”
“Light structures”
“User creation and contribution”
“Massive data”
“Power of the ‘crowd’”
“Network effects”
Problem: None unique to Web2.0
+How to describe a Web2.0 …
ToolSystemServiceCommunityOrganisationCollectionetc
+Approaches to Web2.0
Technology Business modelOrganisational approachIndividual and social practices – for information use and interactions
Structure of knowledgeExpectations
+Academic archaeology
Many of communicative and information practices characteristic of Web2.0 are characteristic of scholarly communication.
However, some of these forms are rather ossified!
Many earlier internet tools used in Web2.0 way
Many more well established trajectories of socio-technical change. What does Web2.0 add?
+e.g. Collaboratories
Shared instruments
Community Data Systems
Open Community Contribution Systems
Virtual Community of Practice
Virtual Learning Community
Distributed Research Centre
Community Infrastructure project
Bos et al. (2007)
Issues of:
Tacit knowledge
Independence of scholars
Information Standards
Institutional and national barriers
Sustainability
+Working model
services for discovering and maintaining relationships
services for sharing research objects and components
services for sharing, annotating and commentating on publications and presentations
services for documenting and sharing experiences.
+How do you use ‘Web2.0’?
How might you define it?
Is it useful or distracting?
Is the idea of qualities useable?
Does Internet =Web2.0 now?
+Framework: Social Shaping of Technology
Technologies emerge from complex processes of invention, implementation, failure and success
Many different social and technical players and objects effect outcome
Sources of innovation included user communities as well as producer groups
Non-linear process involving changes in practices, knowledge, structures and relationships
+Framework: Social Learning in Innovation
Changing relationships between players in innovation as they interact and learn in the processes of invention and implementation.
Importance of visions and theory in promoting and aligning expectations
Importance of intermediaries in bringing together innovations from different communities
Emergence of new intermediaries
+Factors shaping Web2.0 in SC
Ownership and control of scholarly products, both by scholars and institutions such as universities and publishers
Institutional, individual and cultural factors shaping collaboration
Technical implantation of support for Standardisation, IPR and security
Epistemological issues arising in creating and implementing computer-based communication tools.
+Principal issues governing the Dynamics of socio-technical change Disciplinary differences
Scholarly knowledge production Structure, economics, maturity and culture.
Institutional differences
Non-academic influences – individual and broader social appropriation of Web2.0 practices and ideas
Many different innovation pathways
+Academic Approaches
Science Studies
Sociology of Knowledge
Information Science/ Library Studies
Organisational Science (IT implementation)
Technology Studies
Innovation Studies
Economics
+Visions and Empirical change
Open Access Open Science
Library ‘2.0’
Collaboratories and CSCW
Data-driven scholarship
Globalisation
+Disciplinary Differences Empirically
Use of different types of formal outputs Speed of knowledge production Disciplinary cultures Collective working and competitiveness Uses of online systems such as preprint servers
Theoretically Cultures of knowledge production Type of knowledge produced Types of primary materials/sources Maturity of discipline – esp. development of knowledge
standards Interdependence of scholars Interdsciplinarity
+Disciplinary Differences
Musicology
Music
High Energy Physics
Theoretical Physics
Economics
Cultural studies
+Institutional differences
Institution Status Access to publish high ranking journals
Institutional resources and management
Other activities: teaching, commericalisation
Local network effects – critical mass
+Individuals and groups
Experience with use of existing technologies Experience with technical change Age and Career stage Reward structures and motivations Gender Ability to influence technological change Community and institutional support Collaborations and work practices “innovativeness”
+Preliminary questions and issues Does the ‘openness’ and ‘emergence’ of information
and knowledge standards favour emerging and interdisciplinary research, or is Web2.0 primarily taken up in areas with well established, but older IT infrastructures
Does Age, as a proxy for career stage play a role in adoption of Web2.0, and it is biased to youth and early career, or older and more established researchers
Gender is traditionally a factor in technology adoption, and is clearly an factor in disciplinary participation. Are there any unusual patterns in ‘Web2.0’ adoption
…
+RIN Web2.0 Study
ObjectivesWho is using what, where?
What is shaping that use?
The implications for Scholarly Communications.
+RIN Web2.0 Study
Methods Quantitative and representative survey of UK
scholarly community to discover basic use and awareness
50 in dept interviews on scholarly communications and Web2.0
5 case studies of promoters, developers and users of specific ‘web2.0’ services
+Issues
Many different sorts of scholarly communication e.g. information searching, publishing formal outputs,
coordinating
Web2.0 such a vague term, and not well known
Use of much Web2.0 maybe very limited
BUT
Web2.0 not a step change
Ask about personal changes in pratices and institutional change
The experiences and efforts of innovation intermediaries to stimulate change
+What do you want to know?
top related